Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

The Right to Hate! The Right to Bluddy Hate? A Riposte
from Anna!

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on November 15, 2010

This harness is uncomfortable – but necessary. I have had to be tethered to the ground this morning for fear that I might blast off into cyberspace – 3,000 feet and rising! Mr G, ever the practical man, feared the non-appearance of his dinner tonight….

The Right to Hate! The Right to Bluddy Hate? Who, in God’s name, has infringed your right to hate? You are free to hate anyone and anything you wish to. Hatred is a corrosive and non-productive activity best left to the brain dead, but if you wish to indulge – feel free, no one is stopping you ‘hating’.

But of course, you don’t actually mean the right to hate at all, do you? You are playing a deceitful game of semantics.

You mean Expressing The Right to Hate in the Form of Issuing Verbal Threats.

That is a completely different thing, and something that many people are against, but you turn your wish into ‘The Right to Hate’ and complain that a perfectly reasonable emotion is being denied to you. Classic tactics.

I dislike Yasmin Alibhai-Brown intensely. She winds me up. She whinges. She retreats behind her Muslim identity at the first sign of trouble. I am no fan of hers. I don’t support her retreat into a police complaint after Gareth Compton’s incitement to violence – but only because I believe it to be a waste of time that will only succeed in bringing out a crowd of knee jerk responses from people who claim that their ‘right to free speech’ is being denied them.

I sympathise with her reasons for that complaint totally. Utterly.

The blogosphere, for all its loud mouthed assertions that it embraces equality, makes the same mistake as the feminist movement. It simply ignores the biological evidence that men and women are different. They react to things differently, according to their levels of testosterone and oestrogen. You can try all you want to convince yourself that we are all just fingers on keyboards, but it is emotions that drive those fingers across those keyboards – and those emotions are not all equal.

Those with a high level of testosterone will feel comfortable with violence; they are capable of instigating it, replying to it, counter-acting it. Those without, will not. That simple fact will inevitably result in them becoming the victims of violence.

In the real world, the majority of women do have a low level of testosterone – notwithstanding that it rises as we grow older. I may turn into Mack the Knife yet. Sure, you can all point to the odd example that counteracts this generalisation. The battered husband, the female Mossad agent who would terrify Genghis Khan, the foul mouthed female Twitterer – but they are the exceptions.

Most women fear violence because they invariably have no physical choice other than to bow down before it.

That is why we have rape laws – or do you disagree with them too? Perhaps you think your testosterone should be free to express itself physically as well as verbally, however you damn well please? Or would you be horrified at that idea? Is it just behind an anonymous keyboard that it should be socially acceptable for you to issue your threats to those you hate rather than those you lust after?

Nor is it merely women who fear violence, whether physical or verbal. Many men are uncomfortable with it too. I suspect that some men embrace the Blogosphere precisely because in real life they are timid and unassuming, unable to physically joust with their fellow men in time honoured manner, but given a cloak of anonymity in the Blogosphere they can appear to be fearless Titans.

I started this blog because I believed, albeit from a Quaker vantage point, in the Libertarian movement. I had read of the Libertarian ideals extensively in the US, and they seemed to reflect my own beliefs in personal responsibility. I looked around the Blogosphere, expecting to find similar web sites in the UK. I discovered a collection of men ‘expressing their rage’. Swearing, ranting, and obsessed with homosexuality and lewd comments regarding female politicians. You could practically feel the vibrations as they beat their chests. Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! What big boys you are with your smallholdings and shotguns and ‘I can say anything I ***ing well want to’ hiding behind your usernames.

I’m not particularly knocking the ranty-sweary blogs, I can understand the need to let off steam in a society which has endured 13 years of Totalitarian control – I do question how much good it is intended to achieve, beyond a simple egotistical sense of relief. Particularly from the blogs that lie on the outer edge of Anarchic beliefs. You are complaining that you are being ‘forced’ to behave in a certain way – so you want to smash up society and force it to behave in another way? A fine Oxymoron if ever I read one.

A number of Libertarian blogs have packed up recently – as did I, albeit for different reasons. Some of them claim that they have ‘lost the rage’, some that they have ‘got a good job’ and cannot ‘put it at risk’ by blogging. That sounds suspiciously to me as though the only reason you were availing yourself of the finest advance in human communication was to use the keyboard equivalent of the back of the bike sheds, where little boys once gathered to assuage the rising hormones with a sneaky fag, a smutty conversation, a shared sexual revelation. Sheesh! Shame on you – and there was me thinking you wanted to help effect political change in the UK – but you can’t have done, you just wanted to let off steam.

You will never effect political change in the UK – or anywhere else – by alienating half of the voting public – women. Nor by turning your vehicle for change, the blogosphere, into a highly charged testosterone heavy environment, where people have to be prepared to receive death threats if you disagree with them, regardless of whether they are male or female.

I want to see Libertarian responses to the present government. Shouting at them from behind a keyboard is like taking an eyedropper to empty the ocean.

I want to see Libertarian blogs taking up the baton dropped by the main stream media. Saddleworth News is an excellent example, positively the best in depth reporting of the Phil Woolas scandal – and not a swear word in sight. I have no idea if he is a Libertarian, but that is what we should be modelling ourselves on, not screaming for the right to issue death threats to some daft MSM journalist. Libertarian blogs highlighting local injustices where people can step in to help make the government irrelevant. What I termed the ‘Blog Society’. Let government intervention wither and die. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

You all live in communities surrounded by real people, real injustices. Blog about them, invoke the community spirit of the Blogosphere, harness the expertise and energy of all those readers – do something practical with it; don’t waste it on futile demands to be allowed to issue death threats to those you don’t agree with.

That is precisely as futile as Yasmin believing that recourse to criminal law will ever stop people hating her. There is a difference between hating her and publicly calling for her death though.

*Dons tin hat and goes for long walk beside calm and tranquil river*.

{40 comments }

Woodsy42November 15, 2010 at 23:57

Goodness, there are so many issues here I’m not sure what to think.Are women less aggressive and men more likely to be violent? I suppose that’s the stereotypical view and in a purely physical sense it is more often the case that men are stronger (and perhaps see fewer subtle shades of right and wrong so are more direct). But I’m not entirely convinced it’s all down to gender and neither are all battles physical.In the purely physical arena I can well understand where Katabasis is coming from, often force is the easiest way to prevent trouble. This is true in the playground where the potential victim claims if the bully hurts him his big brother will get him, and it’s true in international politics where the country says if you invade we’ll nuke you. Male persuits in both cases I suppose. We all (I hope) stand up for our friends and for honesty, that’s what people do, and it may be morally dubious but superiour strength works.In the case of Compton and Alibhai-Brown however I’m not convinced that there is a physical element. He didn’t threaten to do anything to her himself or directly dictate that anyone else should. Now maybe the lack of direct threat that I perceive is because I’m male, and a woman would hear it differently? Or maybe it’s simply a confidence thing, anyone who was already in a low emotional state might find it threatening? Maybe, but I’m still not exactly convinced.The ‘unconvincing’ element for me is the reference to stoning. No ordinary traditional English person would suggest stoning as a life threatening act or punishment. Despite all the horrendous things we have done to people, burning ‘witches’, hanging thieves, drawing and quartering people for treason, we as a nation have no history of stoning to death as a punishment. This is an Islamic form of punishment. So what Compton was saying in a sense was that she deserved the punishment of her own religion. So what I hear is an insult, to her personally and an insult to Islamic practice, either might be justified or not, I’m not going there, but I don’t hear a threat as such.Is that a purely male view?

“So what Compton was saying in a sense was that she deserved the punishment of her own religion. “

No, he used the stoning reference because that was the subject of the Radio 4 discussion that he was listening to. If the method of execution under discussion had been firing squad or hanging, he’d have used those terms instead.

Yazza is well aware of this.

electro-kevinNovember 15, 2010 at 20:50

Of course you have the right to hate. Who would want to create windows into people’s souls ?

But without the manners and intelligence to repress your true thoughts you’re just a common chav.

honestbrokerNovember 15, 2010 at 20:25

I have a confession to make. I’d not properly read the original remark which prompted Anna’s piece.

Yes, I agee, it was always highly unlikely that Gareth Compton actually meant what he said. And this would be a subject close to Anna’s heart for reasons directly related to me!

What can I say, except that sometimes chains of events lead people to say things that are ill-judged and uncalled for.

I guess you can’t legislate against everything and making the judgment about where lines should be drawn is very difficult.

But yes. Whilst my differences with the libertarian philosophy per se reman, I can’t really argue with anything Anna says in this piece about the specific incident.

(Julia M)

“Beliefs and realities frequently do not coincide. Theo Van Gough did not take death threats against him seriously.”

“I seem to recall that those were serious threats, made by serious people, with serious form for carrying out those threats.

And they didn’t Tweet it”.

Having read the Gareth Compton comment properly, I agree, the comparison is not valid.

honestbrokerNovember 15, 2010 at 17:03

“I would argue that it was the passing of the apartheid laws that created the intolerance that necessitated the current laws…..”

Yes!

Prevailing influences that shape the way people think and their attitudes …

Laws is just one.

honestbrokerNovember 15, 2010 at 16:52

Catosays

“Perhaps we could go back to basics here and ask if anyone seriously believed that the tweet was made ‘with intent’.

Whether YAB honestly believed it..I very much doubt. She has merely used such verbiage to jump on her well-used bandwagon.

Perhaps the tweet should not have been made but I really can’t see anyone taking it with more than a shovelful of salt.”

Beliefs and realities frequently do not coincide. Theo Van Gough did not take death threats against him seriously.

“Beliefs and realities frequently do not coincide. Theo Van Gough did not take death threats against him seriously.”

I seem to recall that those were serious threats, made by serious people, with serious form for carrying out those threats.

And they didn’t Tweet it.

honestbrokerNovember 15, 2010 at 16:45

Ah!

“Hmmn, actually I said I understood her recourse to the law – since it was there – but I also said that the law was ineffective. You can fine Paul Chambers, but you wont change his thoughts on the matter.”

I stand corrected. You sympathise with her act (of reporting the threat) but not with the law that enabled her to take it.

“You invoke the spirit of South Africa – yes apartheid is illegal now, do you really believe that south Africa has suddenly become as fluffy multi-racial society, that men who upheld the law that prevented a black man from travelling ont he same bus as their daughter are suddenly welcoming said black man as a potential suitor for their daughter?”

No, of course I don’t. But I do believe that South Africa is, now, a much more tolerent society than, once, it was. I also believe that empy vessels (of people with no, or indistictly formed, views, opinions and especially prejudices) can be shaped, for good or ill, by the environments in which they live. I think it entirely possible, for example, that if I had been born, white and Aryian, in Nazi Germany, I would have believed the Nazi creed of the superiority of the Aryian race. But because I was born in a later era and in a country with very different values, my outlook is nothing like that. And people, on the whole, tend to obey laws even that they disagree with. Within the British BNP, with abhorent values, there is, nonetheless, intolerance of attitutdes towards ethnic minorities not permitted by the British law. I’ve no doubt that would change if they ever came to power, but as things stand, their influence is less malign than, otherwise, it would be because the law keeps them in check and keeps them a legal party.

Move on a generation (or, perhaps, two) and the lag-effect of laws passed way back begins to take effect. Empty vessels born into a society with values of tolerance, equality and fairness are likely to grow up to adopt them, with a net effect of a fairer and more civilised society for all.

Perhaps we could go back to basics here and ask if anyone seriously believed that the tweet was made ‘with intent’.

Whether YAB honestly believed it..I very much doubt. She has merely used such verbiage to jump on her well-used bandwagon.

Perhaps the tweet should not have been made but I really can’t see anyone taking it with more than a shovelful of salt.

honestbrokerNovember 15, 2010 at 15:13

“Seems to me this is another expression of the classic duality of the word “freedom.” These discussions often ariseon any occasion when one person’s exercise of the freedom *to do* something conflicts with another person’s wish to enjoy freedom *from* something. My granddaughter wishes to exercise her freedom to play her music loundly, I wish to enjoy my freedom from that atrocious racket. We all wish for the freedom *to* speak completely freely, but none of us would surrender the freedom *from* feeling threatened. Freedom *to* – V – Freedom *from.*”

Hire a sound-proof room where your grand-daughter can play her music at any decibel level she chooses without intruding on anyone else’s right to peace and quiet.

Then, in a few years, she’ll be suing you for aiding and abetting the creation of conditions leading to permanent and irreversible hearing-loss …

PTNovember 15, 2010 at 14:51

Seems to me this is another expression of the classic duality of the word “freedom.” These discussions often ariseon any occasion when one person’s exercise of the freedom *to do* something conflicts with another person’s wish to enjoy freedom *from* something. My granddaughter wishes to exercise her freedom to play her music loundly, I wish to enjoy my freedom from that atrocious racket. We all wish for the freedom *to* speak completely freely, but none of us would surrender the freedom *from* feeling threatened. Freedom *to* – V – Freedom *from.*Simples.

Sarbanes OxleyNovember 15, 2010 at 14:49

What truly troubles me with the blogosphere is the way it desensitives discourse. If you went up to somebody in the street with people milling around, and came out with a stream of foul mouthed invective and then threatened to kill them, you deserve to be dragged off and locked up.

YAB is an irritating, arrogant self opininated whiner, I know this because I have met her and had a coffee with her at the conference on modern liberty. I disagreed with her world view, I counter argued it was not neccessary to raise my voice, use profanities or threaten to kill her because I was in a social arena and to do so was to demean both her and me.

YAB believes that she is very important, she is also very thin skinned. Pomposity is easily pricked by ridicule not by threats of violence real or imagined.

The internet does not allow the nuances of facial expression, the look in the eye and weighing up the person in front of you.

So the Libertarian will always weigh up the balance between freedom and personal responsibility. The tribal follower will kill, maim and destroy in the name of the group mindlessly which is why I distrust the mob, the state and organised religion. It requires you not to think just react to the prevailing group think.

Hate is a waste of time energy and emotion.

Think back to Orwell’s 1984 and the daily ‘hate in’ check the snarling twisted faces on a youtube clip if you have not seen the film or read the book.

Tories hate socialists, socialists hate tories, I just think they are both plain wrong, I don’t hate either.

Anna, speaking as a man for whom violence has been pretty much a way of life for thirteen years, I wanted to address some of the concerns you raise.

I’m very mindful of the force differential between men and women and the many affects this has on our mutual shared interactions (on and offline). I have often explained this to male friends who are completely flummoxed by the modern woman’s mating rituals; for example many men make the mistake of assuming women aren’t as interested in sex – failing to understand that as much of the reticence comes from deep seated concerns about physical safety as it does from socially conditioned BS regarding male and female sexuality.

A lot of this confusion also comes from us having the notion of complete equality continually drilled into us and I’m relieved to see you write that there are important differences to be recognised and addressed.

The differential you correctly identify though isn’t all bad. When people realised just how bad what you were on the receiving end of had become I noticed a lot of chest thumping that circled around wanting to protect you. Had you reported that any of these people were actually coming to visit you in person I would have – sincerely – travelled across the country, across the channel and to your house to offer my protection for as long as I could practically afford to do so. I’m sure I would not have been the only one.

You can call it testosterone bravado if you want, it is what it is.

I would – whenever circumstances allow – gladly offer my help to anyone I consider to be in a weak or vulnerable position. I, and my friends, have done many times before. It is something I wish I could blog about – I know it would inspire many others to look after their neighbor, metaphorically speaking. I cannot speak of most of it because it is highly likely myself and others would be arrested as a result, despite the fact that these actions were unquestionably the ‘right’ thing to do. These people had no one else to turn to.

Only one case I’m willing to mention – and that is because the police showed absolutely zero interest in helping despite calls for help – was about 10 years ago, a couple of the more vulnerable left-wing activists in Sheffield were being terrorised by a couple of “redwatch” people. They started receiving threatening phone calls, emails even house visits. As you have no doubt gathered, there is no love lost between myself and the left here, but it was something I wasn’t willing to tolerate. I called in a few favours, found out within a matter of days who was responsible and put what I’m only willing to describe as a hard stop to it. Those activists haven’t been bothered since (though unfortunately I have since become persona non grata again because I thoroughly objected to them subsequently agitating for house visits for those revealed to be on the BNP membership list. They didn’t take it too well when I said I wouldn’t help at all to defend them (the lefties) as a result of any backlash and would consider it well deserved, in particular because of their outright hypocrisy).

So we may be brutes, but some of us realise that fact. And not all of us are unthinking brutes. I use the dragon as my symbol because it symbolises – to me – strength tempered with wisdom. And I believe we are at our best when we are strong and that all of our best behaviours flow out from a position of strength (in the sense of the Nietzschean ‘gift giving virtue’ of the overflowing of self) – as a result I also think that those of us who are strong in arm and in heart are duty and honour bound to most certainly help those who are weaker in the former category, weak hearts (especially consciously chosen) though don’t garner much sympathy from me however.

I only hide behind a cloak of mild anonymity (and it is mild, enough effort can identify me, but it is enough to shield me from the lazy and opportunistic) because my political views are often not compatible with the jobs I generally hold and I often feel like a solider behind enemy lines. A few more years and I’ll be able to come fully out into the open, but not yet.

Katabasis,I think you deserve an award for the most clearly laid out and well thought out response to any blogpost.Beautifully put Sir.And I do thoroughly appreciate the magnificent support I received, and you are quite right, that if it had come to any of those people carrying out their threat to turn up on my doorstep, it is to Testosterone that I would have turned, and ‘chest thumpers’ I would gladly have hidden behind. but that is my point, we all have our stregnths and weaknesses – I can appreciate your strength, all I am asking of people is that they appreciate that this attitude of ‘if you can’t stand the heat get out the kitchen’ is/will drive those people who don’t have your strength away from the blogosphere either as Bloggers or as readers and that is something I deplore. The MSM has sadly let us down in terms of imparting information; we have a new medium to impart information, why destroy it with ugly threats and violence, libel and bullying?

In certain ways I agree with you, however I think this is where we are really obliged to engage in the kind of self-policing that would be required in a genuinely Libertarian society – something which you have contributed to admirably with this post.

honestbrokerNovember 15, 2010 at 14:43

Hmmm!

Unsure if I’m understanding you aright, here? Or if I’m understanding the libertarian philosophy correctly? But as I understand it, the libertarian ideal is that everyone should be free to do pretty much as they please just so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of another. Is that the gist?

And Anna is arguing here, in defence of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, whom she tells us she doesn’t, personally like, that she is entitled to the protection of the law from death threats, and that those responsible for the death threats should be held judicially accountable for their acts.

If that’s right, then this case highlights and underlines my biggest problem with libertarianism. It’s obvious and unmistakable that to issue a death threat against someone (even if idle!) is an infringement on the rights of the person against whom it is directed, and may cause that person to live in fear.

What about depression and the things that can cause it? To be cast as a pariah in society is singularly unpleasant, and can certainly lead to depression, or perhaps, even, suicide. These effects can be brought about by hatred, alone. Neither threats nor direct actions are necessary to create the conditions that cause them.

That, surely, is the justification for hate laws, isn’t it? And I dispute Anna’s assertion that creating laws plays no part in combatting a propensity of people to hate. There is the herd instinct that, left unchecked, can take hold. Among the more ‘harmless’ degradations of Jews living in Nazi-occupied countries during the war was that they would be forced to wear billboards on their backs with insulting slogans written on them, such as ‘Jew pig’, so that people could mock and jeer. No direct physical harm. Just the power of degradation and insult.

Part of the creation of a civilised society is the laws that underpin them. Another part is previaling attitudes and I think the one can strongly influence the other. South Africa is no longer an arpartheid country, and whilst, no doubt, there are still those living in that country who regret that, there is, now, a much higher level of intolerance of racist attitudes than, once there was. The country’s laws will have gone a long way to bringing about that change.

My fundamental argument with libertarianism is that the boundaries of where our propensity to harm others lie is much fuzzier and more indistinct than proponents of the belief will allow.

” South Africa is no longer an arpartheid country, and whilst, no doubt, there are still those living in that country who regret that, there is, now, a much higher level of intolerance of racist attitudes than, once there was. “

“And Anna is arguing here, in defence of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, whom she tells us she doesn’t, personally like, that she is entitled to the protection of the law from death threats, and that those responsible for the death threats should be held judicially accountable for their acts.”Hmmn, actually I said I understood her recourse to the law – since it was there – but I also said that the law was ineffective. You can fine Paul Chambers, but you wont change his thoughts on the matter. You invoke the spirit of South Africa – yes apartheid is illegal now, do you really believe that south Africa has suddenly become as fluffy multi-racial society, that men who upheld the law that prevented a black man from travelling ont he same bus as their daughter are suddenly welcoming said black man as a potential suitor for their daughter?Forcing people to change their views, either through the law, or through bullying and threats, is never going to change their minds. Reasoned arguement might, facts, clearly laid out might, but force? Never.

ivanNovember 15, 2010 at 14:32

There is another possible reason all the swearing ranting blogs closing – people just don’t want to read that sort of thing. As far as I’m concerned a person that has to use swear words as much as possible has nothing of interest to say unlike you Anna, where every word counts towards a sane, well thought argument.

What if someone had twittered (in exactly the same way, to a radio show that YAB was on) “will someone shut that bitch up”, or “Tell her to go and play on the outside lane of the M1″ or “Tell her to talk a long walk on a short pier”…what would/should YABs reaction had been…any one of those phrases could upset a daughter.

“will someone shut that bitch up”Do you not think that a series – a twitterstorm even – of factual counter arguemnts would be more effective?You might feel better for that Twitter, but what does it actually achieve beyond that?Why do you imagine that the world should listen to an ugly riposte any more than Yasmin?I realise that Social Media is important, I use Twitter – and every time I go on Twitter I groan as I see the overnight filth from people, who’s ‘rogering’ who’s Mother – I have to force myself to use it. Sometimes it feels like walking through a field of cow pats. Yes, I can do it, but I’ll wager there are a lot of people out there who might well read the blogs, be influenced by the idea of a new politics, but who take one look at Twitter and say ‘Not for me’.

I am asking what would/should YAB have done if the same guy had sent one of the phrases I wrote. Do you think she would she have called the police? Would the police have acted at all? I don’t use Twitter nor do I insult anyone gratuitously …much…(except male politicians)…

“I feel we are getting sidetracked here. My post was not concerned with how ‘serious’ that threat was…”

Sadly, it is indeed the heart and crux of the matter. If people are allowed to ignore the intent of the sender, and insist that it’s the receiver that gets to determine that intent, we’re doomed. It’s what has led to many of our problems with race hate laws. It’s not a road I want to see anyone else go down.“…whether we are really putting the Internet to its best use fighting this particular fire.”

If not this one, which one?

” I just feel that to fight for the right to make threats on the Internet isfutile and a waste of all our talents.”

Yup, I’m well aware of that, and I appreciate that it may have coloured your reaction. Its why we dont let distraught relative decide on sentencing…

AND I’m aware that her daughter saw it.

But here’s the unpalatable truth. I don’t think much of someone who hides behind her child any more than I do of someone who uses their sex or colour or religion as a shield. And that is what she’s doing.

– and I don’t actually care what she is doing, nor hr motives. I do care that people are lobbying for the right for the Blogosphere to be a place of bullying and intimidation on the back of her whinges.I had hoped that the blogosphere could amount to something better than that.

There are conventions and social niceties still being worked out, as the web develops. Witness ‘Twitterstorms’, or the way people support those having troll problems (like yourself) or the way some groups (like 4chan) go all out to combat censorship…

It’s a new medium. The old ways for speech and written communication aren’t going to work and will need to adapt. I’m confident they will.

“…don’t waste it on futile demands to be allowed to issue death threats to those you don’t agree with.”

Who has done that? If he’d made a real death threat, don’t think ANYONE’D be backing him. His Tweet was no more serious than Paul Chambers’ Tweet was a serious attempt to issue a bomb threat to Robin Hood airport.

That’s the point of this. And she shouldnt get to hide behind the ‘oh, but I’m a little woman and the big bad man said….’. She’s a journalist. She should know better.

NO! Julia – a thousand times No!You may be big enough and tough enough to cope with someone making threats towards you in your real name that your children read – but not everyone is – male or female.Why do you want to create an environment that can only be survived by the toughest?Ooh, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?Great, you have just created a kitchen that is exclusive to a certain type of person instead of a mass communication tool!Don’t we have enough exclusive environments – the MSM for one – that we need to rule this one out for mass readership?

Depends what you mean by serious – the intent of the sender or in the eyes of the receiver?

I understand that her daughter read the comment? You are aware of my recent circumstances. People do beleive what they read on the Internet, they do take it seriously. If her daughter was scared to go out – and bear in mind, she writes under her own name, then it is a threat to be taken seriously.

I feel we are getting sidetracked here. My post was not concerned with how ‘serious’ that threat was, nor whether there should be laws against it or not – but whether we are really putting the Internet to its best use fighting this particular fire.

There is a law in place (there probably shouldn’t be) Yasmin has used it. It will be ineffective. I just feel that to fight for the right to make threats on the Internet is futile and a waste of all our talents.